I belong to a women’s organization that aims to empower professional women through networking, skill building, and education. Anytime you have a volunteer organization with multiple directives, it is a challenge to keep individuals motivated and on-task. When I first joined, we all met together and identified the needs of the organization, e.g., marketing, registration, operations, leadership, and administration. For the areas for which we didn’t personally have skill-sets, we advertised and recruited others. Eventually, we had a fairly strong team of 10 ladies who met once a month to plan the upcoming events. One issue that became apparent fairly quickly is how decisions were made and how action items were followed up, considering everyone was worried about being inclusive and supportive. We found that if we required a consensus on every decision, we would need to spend hours in discussion every week, which wasn’t practical from a scheduling point of view, and wasn’t the most efficient use of time.
Although we had a chair and vice-chair of the organization, they were practicing supportive leadership, which did not fit the needed task characteristics. What was missing was directive, participative, and achievement-oriented leadership. While these leaders were worried about offending the group or “stepping on toes”, the rest of the group was looking to “make a difference” and feel that they were being useful. When it comes to event planning, it is difficult to lean on volunteers if the expectations and instructions are not clearly outlined. This is where it is helpful to go back to the situation and consider why people volunteer in the first place. People volunteer to be helpful, useful, and feel that they are bringing value to a cause they care about. As leaders, we not only need to be aware of that, but need to consider it in the way that we lead.
My spouse and I do a big Thanksgiving party at our house every year (note: I live overseas and don’t see my family for this holiday). It used to be a small gathering where we provided all of the turkey and trimmings, but we have since turned it into a potluck, making it into more of a party. One observation I had was that the level of investment was dramatically different when we asked guests to bring a dish of their own; they were not only more punctual, but stayed longer and were more apt to speak to others they hadn’t previously met. At first, we asked everyone to “bring a dish”, which resulted in many emails expressing insecurities around cooking capabilities. The next year we provided a structure: side dish, salad, main dish, or dessert, which had a better overall response, but still a lot of ambiguity. This past year, I provided a list of specific dishes to bring, coupled with time arrival windows, e.g., 2 – 4pm: chips & dip, corn on the cob, or smoked salmon blinis. This use of the directive and participative style of leadership resulted in half the amount of emails and double the participation. As much as I was worried about coming across as bossy, others were worried about not knowing what to bring and therefore, not meeting my expectations. We had 62 people this last Thanksgiving!
What I really appreciate about the path-goal theory is that it considers the motivations and task characteristics that are needed depending on the situation. What I have found most useful is that particular styles of leadership that I would not consider to be of high value in a work setting, really work well in a non-work or volunteer setting. I think this is in part due to the investment versus achievement ratio. For example, when I am entering a career, I want to learn the ins and outs of my role, have a boss who understands and supports me, and knows that what I do will be recognized and appreciated along the way. Likewise, when I volunteer or attend a party, I want to know what will be most appreciated with the least amount of investment or effort. This may sound sad or insincere, but if we can understand and utilize this, then it can be a win-win situation for all parties.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2020). PSYCH 485 Lessons 6: Contingency and Path Theories. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2045005/modules/items/28166610